Part of the Global Plot to Expose Moonbats, conspiracy nuts, and anti-Semites, especially the Jewish anti-Semitic variety.
The leftwing Neo-Nazi web magazine Counterpunch has described Plaut thus: "One of the most pernicious writers is Steven Plaut, a man who could be thought of as Israel's Daniel Pipes."

Monday, February 19, 2007

So many fences....

1. The headline in today's Israeli press: The Minister of InternalSecurity (meaning police) offered to appoint Amram Miztna as DirectorGeneral of the Ministry. Now why exactly is that funny?Because Amram Mitzna, the ex-Mayor of Haifa, current Mayor of Yeruham, andhas-been contender for Prime Minister as past-Rais of the Labor Party, isone of the most crooked politicians in Israel. His crooked deals and tieswith Israeli oligarchs make those in post-Soviet Russia look tame.Appointing him as chief of the police is a bit like appointing Ahmad Tibias commander of the army.After it hit the press, the Minister, Avi Dichter, seems to have backedaway from the idea.

Sir, - In "The Amalek syndrome" (UpFront, February 9) Samuel G. Freedmansuggests that Alvin Rosenfeld's report on "progressive" Jewishintellectuals' anti-Israel positions is an example of the "Amaleksyndrome." Most Passover celebrants understand the agenda behind thetraditional, self-contradictory, remembrance of Amalek, whose memory is to"be blotted out from under Heaven," not as quenching nonconformists amongthemselves but as remembering that every generation of the Jewish peoplehas external enemies.

Prof. Freedman, who describes himself as a "political Zionist," accusesRosenfeld not only of an attempt to suppress discussion and "invalidate,delegitimize and disenfranchise" the objects of his immediate criticism,Jacqueline Rose, Michael Neumann, Tony Judt and Tony Kushner, but also ofeffectively disempowering young Jewish intellectuals on college campuseswho "yearn" for a "chance to openly dissent about Israel" without being"banished from the Jewish community."

No such sanctions are recommended by Rosenfeld's report, which isthoughtful, extremely well-informed, academically precise and free fromthe "demagogic" tendency Freedman imputes to it. It is not easy to meet onits own intellectual ground. Hence the outcry against it: Apparentlyfreedom of opinion is limited to the side against which Rosenfeld engagesin debate.

Freedman opens by referring to Purim. It might be apt to recollect that inthe Book of Esther the main danger is not the military attacks of anAmalek, but the scheming of Haman, an anti-Semitic politician in thePersian capital.